I vividly remember one of my high school history teachers explaining on the first day of class that change can be either “revolutionary” or “evolutionary” and then asking for examples. This being an American history class, I had a revolutionary change already queued up, the American Revolution. I think we all love it when the title gives away the answer.

Last week, the Supreme Court passed on an opportunity to make a revolutionary change. With the cases of Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone, the high court could have ended partisan gerrymandering as we know it. These cases, one challenging Wisconsin districts drawn by Republicans and one challenging Maryland districts drawn by Democrats, respectively, could have allow the justices to end what many call “election rigging.” And, since there were challenges that both parties were playing dirty politics, the Supreme Court could have criticized both Democrats and Republicans, essentially keeping the justices on the moral and political high ground.

But the justices failed to take the path of revolution. Instead, based on essentially a procedural ruling, they dismissed the complaints filed by the voters and, at least temporarily, allowed the process as we know it to continue in most states. Many commentators saw this as the Supreme Court avoiding a controversy, punting on a major constitutional issue and dodging the duty they were selected to do.

Before reformers dismiss the decision as an example of a “do nothing court,” we should remember that the Supreme Court is not designed to be a catalyst for revolutionary change. Our system, for better or worse, is designed to be a slow, methodical process. This obviously comes to the pain of those wanting quick resolution but to the delight of attorneys who charge based on billable hours (as a former full-time attorney, I am legally allowed to poke fun at my colleagues).

Avoiding revolutionary change is really nothing new for the Supreme Court. Political scientists and legal commentators have long pointed to the slow process of change that occurs in the court. Others argue that even when the Supreme Court seems to make a revolutionary change, such with abortion in Roe v. Wade or same-sex marriage as in Obergefell v. Hodges, it is just legitimizing trends that have already taken place in society. By the time Roe was decided, many states had already started to ease their abortion restrictions. The same is true with same-sex couples, as most states had already legalized same-sex marriage in some degree before the Supreme Court decided Obergefell.

The bigger problem for the justices is likely how to figure out where to draw the line (pun intended) on what is too much partisan gerrymandering. If there were an easy and catchy slogan like “one person, one vote,” we may have already solved this problem. But partisan gerrymandering is much more complicated. Judges also are often skeptical of using statistical evidence, complicated mathematical formulas and “sociological gobbledygook” (Chief Justice Roberts’ words, not mine) to solve legal issues. After all, math isn’t required to get a law degree, but something more may be needed to solve this issue.

Then there is the problem of enforcing whatever standard that is accepted. Even in Brown v. Board of Education, it took many years, hundreds of separate lawsuits and county-by-county challenges to achieve any type of meaningful integration. Whatever standard may be fashioned to limit partisan gerrymandering, we should not expect the lawsuits to end, as working out these standards will take time. Did I mention most lawyers are paid based on billable hours?

For those wanting reform, however, the trends seem to be moving in that direction. Recent surveys across several states, including North Carolina, point to a growing desire by voters for nonpartisan redistricting. Several justices on the Supreme Court, highlighted by Justice Kagan’s concurring opinion in the Gill case, seem to be open to court intervention. North Carolina’s current cases may be a part of this solution, but likely not soon.

This should not be a partisan issue, as political gerrymandering has helped (and hurt) both sides in the past and across different states, depending on which party just happened to be in power in the state legislature right after the decennial census.

The solution, unfortunately, is not as easy as answering a simple question in a high school history class, and the title alone doesn’t give us clues. With some creative solutions (sorry folks, but it may take some sociological gobbledygook) and a lot of billable hours, the trends do appear to be moving to elections decided by the voters and not the line drawers.

Todd Collins is the David and Lois Steed Distinguished Professor of Public Policy in the Department of Political Science and Public Affairs at Western Carolina University, where he also directs the Public Policy Institute.